"Last week it was reported that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doesn't believe in molecular biology. He also seems to doubt the need for a transparent, accountable and impartial Supreme Court. Earlier this month, we learned that Justice Scalia has once again met with a conservative political group behind closed doors."

"Last week it was reported that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doesn't believe in molecular biology. He also seems to doubt the need for a transparent, accountable and impartial Supreme Court. Earlier this month, we learned that Justice Scalia has once again met with a conservative political group behind closed doors."

That could be simply a harsh reading of what he wrote.
He may simply be stating ignorance of that level of detail, that area of science, and therefor be unable, in good conscience, to affirm that portion of the judgement.

I suspect it actually conflicts with his beliefs, but it is not clear from that statement.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

"Last week it was reported that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doesn't believe in molecular biology. He also seems to doubt the need for a transparent, accountable and impartial Supreme Court. Earlier this month, we learned that Justice Scalia has once again met with a conservative political group behind closed doors."

And there is a very good reason for Scalia to sign on in full to the opinion not allowing patent of DNA, but not sign on to the science discussion . The Supreme Court's opinion apparently made scientific factual errors in their written majority opinion:

"I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature."

Now, I don't know the details of molecular biology either. Maybe Scalia is just humble enough to know he isn't knowledgeable enough to affirm the scientific discussion. Maybe in their discussions about the cases, Scalia was not confident enough to convince the other justices there was a problem with the science discussion. Scalia is famously gregarious and described somewhat surprisingly by liberal stalwarts like Bader-Ginsberg and Sotomayor as a "pleasure to work with". Maybe the court as a group was struggling with the science and he was concerned that he might make factual errors in that portion of the opinion. If it is in fact the case that the science discussion was factually wrong, why isn't the story about the justices who signed off on the factually incorrect science?

There are other reasons to criticize Scalia. He lets his social conservatism sometimes color his opinions, in particular on issues about homosexuality. I don't think Scalia is saying here that he doesn't believe in science.

"Last week it was reported that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doesn't believe in molecular biology. He also seems to doubt the need for a transparent, accountable and impartial Supreme Court. Earlier this month, we learned that Justice Scalia has once again met with a conservative political group behind closed doors."

And there is a very good reason for Scalia to sign on in full to the opinion not allowing patent of DNA, but not sign on to the science discussion . The Supreme Court's opinion apparently made scientific factual errors in their written majority opinion:

"I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature."

Now, I don't know the details of molecular biology either. Maybe Scalia is just humble enough to know he isn't knowledgeable enough to affirm the scientific discussion. Maybe in their discussions about the cases, Scalia was not confident enough to convince the other justices there was a problem with the science discussion. Scalia is famously gregarious and described somewhat surprisingly by liberal stalwarts like Bader-Ginsberg and Sotomayor as a "pleasure to work with". Maybe the court as a group was struggling with the science and he was concerned that he might make factual errors in that portion of the opinion. If it is in fact the case that the science discussion was factually wrong, why isn't the story about the justices who signed off on the factually incorrect science?

There are other reasons to criticize Scalia. He lets his social conservatism sometimes color his opinions, in particular on issues about homosexuality. I don't think Scalia is saying here that he doesn't believe in science.